3 ms·

Strawman aside... “Hate speech” is a very loose term. Do you mean actual calls to incite violence? Which are illegal and no one has any problem with their remo

Strawman aside... “Hate speech” is a very loose term. Do you mean actual calls to incite violence? Which are illegal and no one has any problem with their removal? Or do you mean “things I just don’t like”? Because HN already has a strong bubble mechanic to remove wrong-think (in practice right now!) “I disagree with you” or “I’m wildly wrong” isn’t typically against a website’s terms of service. Is this looney guy being wrong about 5G calling for violence? Is his opinion illegal in anyway? Can you see no scenario (past your own nose) that your opinion ever winds up on the “wrong side” of corporate judgment? Furthermore, if you’re just going to kick people off your platform because they’re wrong, you had better not selectively enforce that. Seems like it’s best to just be a PLATFORM. Which is exactly what they all claim to be. Except they do it while enjoying PUBLISHER convenience of removing things they just don’t like but are otherwise within the rules and terms.

mullingitover 7y ago
> “Hate speech” is a very loose term. No. It really isn't. Normal people know it when they see it, and the people who claim not to know it are usually the ones using it, along with the bad faith contrarians. > Seems like it’s best to just be a PLATFORM. Which is exactly what they all claim to be. Most sites refer to themselves as communities, and I have no problem with a community kicking bad actors (which they're free to define on their own terms) out while not being held legally responsible if they fail to do that perfectly.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  > No. It really isn't. Normal people know it when they see it, Wow. That’s an argument I didn’t expect to see. Do you know we’ve already been over this for pornography? It’s a pretty famous argument that didn’t go the way you might want if you’re using it too. If you can’t tell me what hate speech is, but prove my point saying “people know what it is”... that’s exactly the definition of “loosely defined”. I’m not even saying it shouldn’t be loosely defined, there is nuance per context. >Communities Would you please be so kind as to tell me where that definition is in Section 230? You can refer to yourself however you like. In this context the LEGAL terms are platform and publisher. Well, Sounds like a good plan you have there. That it’s entirely ethical to hide wrong-think. Yes, I hope you never think the wrong things! Surely that could never happen right? Do you think it is coincidence that your opinion largely agrees with Silicon Valley’s “taste makers”?
  - mullingitover 7y ago
    > Do you know we’ve already been over this for pornography? It’s a pretty famous argument that didn’t go the way you might want if you’re using it too. I know exactly the context I'm lifting that line from (fun fact: Hacker News is not The Government). The great thing about Section 230 is that what is 'offensive' is up to the interactive service provider to judge. We're free to host our own web sites, let others publish to them, and we're free to tell them to get lost if they post repugnant things we don't like. It's perfectly in the spirit of the 1st Amendment. You're free to start your own web site and allow hate speech to be posted there. Many have tried. This site doesn't do that, and you're still spending time here and not on the hate speech-friendly sites. Why is that?
    - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
      > You're free to start your own web site and allow hate speech to be posted there. And we’re done. That’s two strawmen in two posts.

mullingitover 7y ago

> “Hate speech” is a very loose term. No. It really isn't. Normal people know it when they see it, and the people who claim not to know it are usually the ones using it, along with the bad faith contrarians. > Seems like it’s best to just be a PLATFORM. Which is exactly what they all claim to be. Most sites refer to themselves as communities, and I have no problem with a community kicking bad actors (which they're free to define on their own terms) out while not being held legally responsible if they fail to do that perfectly.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
> No. It really isn't. Normal people know it when they see it, Wow. That’s an argument I didn’t expect to see. Do you know we’ve already been over this for pornography? It’s a pretty famous argument that didn’t go the way you might want if you’re using it too. If you can’t tell me what hate speech is, but prove my point saying “people know what it is”... that’s exactly the definition of “loosely defined”. I’m not even saying it shouldn’t be loosely defined, there is nuance per context. >Communities Would you please be so kind as to tell me where that definition is in Section 230? You can refer to yourself however you like. In this context the LEGAL terms are platform and publisher. Well, Sounds like a good plan you have there. That it’s entirely ethical to hide wrong-think. Yes, I hope you never think the wrong things! Surely that could never happen right? Do you think it is coincidence that your opinion largely agrees with Silicon Valley’s “taste makers”?
- mullingitover 7y ago
  > Do you know we’ve already been over this for pornography? It’s a pretty famous argument that didn’t go the way you might want if you’re using it too. I know exactly the context I'm lifting that line from (fun fact: Hacker News is not The Government). The great thing about Section 230 is that what is 'offensive' is up to the interactive service provider to judge. We're free to host our own web sites, let others publish to them, and we're free to tell them to get lost if they post repugnant things we don't like. It's perfectly in the spirit of the 1st Amendment. You're free to start your own web site and allow hate speech to be posted there. Many have tried. This site doesn't do that, and you're still spending time here and not on the hate speech-friendly sites. Why is that?
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    > You're free to start your own web site and allow hate speech to be posted there. And we’re done. That’s two strawmen in two posts.